While Kristof and the Democrats paint the picture that these numbers are evidence of a military ready to cut and run, they don't take into account the fact that the Pentagon's existing plan calls for troop reduction of almost half in the next 6 months and about 75% by the end of the year. So it's reasonable to assume, since the responses are consistent with the existing troop reduction plan, that the respondents were taking this plan into account when answering the question. Hardly the bombshell the Left wanted to portray.

And check out this inconsistency:

A majority of troops (53%) said the U.S. should double both the number of troops and bombing missions in order to control the insurgency.

What a huge contradiction. If the US military is begging to get out of Iraq, why does the majority want more troops and bombing missions when it would certainly require them to stay longer?

Here's another contradiction:

A majority of the troops serving in Iraq said they were satisfied with the war provisions from Washington. Just 30% of troops said they think the Department of Defense has failed to provide adequate troop protections, such as body armor, munitions, and armor plating for vehicles like HumVees.

Again, how does this jibe with the image of our troops begging to come home?

Something is off here, these results are out of synch with what we've been hearing for the past 3 years. And I'm saying that as someone who wears the uniform, not as someone who supports the war.

I'm not going to challenge the chief pollster, Dr. John Zogby is a well-respected academic whose work is trusted by folks who matter. But I am concerned about this LeMoyne College Center for Peace and Global Studies, who conducted the poll in conjunction with Zogby. I've learned to distrust any center or institute with the word "peace" in its name. They always seem to have agendas.

Riehl World View has information about the LeMoyne College Center for Peace and Global Studies and its anti-Iraq war agenda.

Update: On his radio show today, Hugh Hewitt interviewed Zogby about his poll. Zogby didn't seem to appreciate the questions Hugh asked him so he hung up midway through the interview. Radioblogger has the transcript.

Obviously there's something amiss here. It should be noted that only soldiers in the green zone were questioned, so it's not really random or representative of 'troops in Iraq'. Of course polls are always suspect.

One point of conversation has been the claim that:

Almost 90% think war is retaliation for Saddam's role in 9/11

Is there anybody who has purchsed the report and can shed some light on the specifics of how this question was fielded?

I'm sorry but I cannot wrap my head around the purported "80%" want White Phosphorous and Napalm elmiminated.

You're a lot more responsible than I am so I'm going to go out on a very short limb and state that few if any soldiers were actually polled. Frankly I think either the pollsters themselves fudged the results or they were mangled further up the stream.

Seriously. What's Zogby's response to the Mystery Pollsters request for confirmation of this poll's veracity?

The troops are disciplined enough not to bitch except among themselves. Same as it's always been. Until now, I guess. These numbers are revealing the frustration of conducting a LIMITED AND POLITICALLY CORRECT "WAR" AGAINST EVIL. The bottom line is this: Like Vietnam this conflict is being run from the White House. Want Proof? IEDs: Any private who's been through the third phase of boot camp knows that unless a road is secure it's not to be used: you off-road it 300 yards east, half a mile north , ANYWHERE but where the bad guys think you might pass. And if the paved roads or bridge or a bottleneck can't be avoided or are of tactical importance you SECURE it and move your lines accordingly. This will entail the use of free fire zones but guess what? IED casualties will decrease 99%. WHY are we not doing this? Military doctrine says we should! I could go on about COURT MARTIALLING our own soldiers for "taking names" after kicking ass. And what's this I hear about ONLY NEAR-BEER being available in the rear? These are all problems that, if Bush hasn't decreed them, he could change right NOW.

Polls produced by the MSM are as rivetting and meaningful as a pimple on a bull's ass. The war in Iraq IS OVER. Saddam is gone, and will soon be "sleeping with the fishes". We are occupying, securing, and rebuilding a defeated nation. WWII ended in 1945 but we stayed in the defeated countries, fought insurections (which means taking casualties), and performed nation-building duties for years.

Your point does not stand up to reason. The pentagon reduction plan would have nothing to do with the high number of responses that EVERY soldier should come home. If the question was "Do you think half the troops should come home" then you would be on to something.

Bryan, please provide details on how to accomplish this plan to avoid the roads in a city...I'm guessing you're advocating continually demolishing buildings to create a new path everytime we want to go somewhere? Of course then that becomes a 'road' and has to be avoided, so you have to use a tank or armored bulldozer to tear a new 'road' through baghdad on the other side of the verboten 'street'...Basically, it's not doable in a city, unless, of course, you don't ever go anywhere (helicopters, anyone?). Of course there are still a lot of unemployed fellas over there, we could put them to work constantly rebuilding houses and businesses so we can keep knocking them down...kill two birds with one stone, you might say.

so if our bases aren't there we won't have to go into the cities? What if our enemies are in a city? wouldn't we have to go into the city to find our enemies? here we come! collateral damage be damned, we're driving through your house instead of the roads! Vroom! Maybe during WWII that was a viable tactic, I don't think so anymore.

Paul, No, in the Hollywood versions of the Alamo there's no city (OK, village). There was. It was known for its chili stands (really!) Travis and Crockett and company chose so militarily intolerable a base as the Alamo for a dubious political purpose: to embarrass Pres. Jackson and force him to involve U.S.troops in order to rescue/ reinforce American citizens in arms against the anti-slavery Texicans. They figured Ol' Hickory would at least be moved by the fact that a new Slave State and their representatives in Congress would defuse the early talk of seccession by the out-numbered south. A win-win situation. And despite no love lost at all Jackson did send a relief force under Houston, his best friend , who as we know made it his business not to arrive too quickly, after all "Who 's bright idea was it to hole-up when there's all of Camanche Country to play in?" In Iraq we are like a chess player (a BAD chess player ) who has brought his Queen out too early and it is now being chased by pawns. Like the Queen who's great range is obstructed: the closer in to the enemy we get, the less advantage we have . And one Nuke? Who will rescue us?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: There was a poll done, just random in the last week, first one I've seen carefully done; admittedly, it's a difficult area to poll in. Zogby International did it with American Enterprise magazine. But that's got very positive news in it in terms of the numbers it shows with respect to the attitudes to what Americans have done.

Zogby is the same guy who predicted Kerry would beat Bush and was still predicting it on the evening of the election based upon his own flawed pre-election polling and exit polling -- until Kerry lost, that is.

Want Proof? IEDs: Any private who's been through the third phase of boot camp knows that unless a road is secure it's not to be used: you off-road it 300 yards east, half a mile north , ANYWHERE but where the bad guys think you might pass.

We're not talking about a rural road cutting through a jungle here. We're talking about roads going through villages, towns and cities. Roads that are necessary for the logistical effort needed to keep the soldiers supplied. Additionally we're not maneuvering an infantry battalion in prep for a meeting engagement.

This is about control. Control over villages, towns and cities. And to control them, and to protect the supply system, the roads must be controlled. So they need to be patrolled. Certainly casualties would be greatly reduced if the soldiers kept 300 yards away from roads and all developed or urban areas. They'd be even safer if we kept them in their bases. They'd be safest of all if we brought them back. But in every single one of those instances the missions wouldn't be done and the job at hand would become a failure.

2.

And what's this I hear about ONLY NEAR-BEER being available in the rear?

Yeah! Cause what I really want in a combat zone are a bunch of stressed-out young men who are short on sleep, armed to the teeth and drunk off their ass.

3.

Falze, Our bases shouldn't be in cities. Remember the Alamo.

Most of our bases aren't in cities. There are exceptions but that's generally due to issues of command and control. The Green Zone is in Baghdad because that's the political and cultural center.

The bases are also situated based on the need for proximity. Sure they could be even farther out, but that just makes for even longer roadways that need to be constantly monitored to prevent IED attacks.

OK, first off I haven't read the full results or the questions, and don't know all the details. BUT...I'd wager that the numbers COULD be that high because OF COURSE, people want to come home. Not that they think *everyone* should come home, though. And if I were there, I'm sure I'd be wishing for it to all be over soon, too. Probably that's what they were thinking--or wishing. Not saying "we should leave."

Bryan said, "The troops are disciplined enough not to bitch except among themselves. Same as it's always been. Until now, I guess."

And that's probably all it is. Bitching, like the troops always do (I was one myself--and "even" in the Air Force it's part of the job to bitch). Ever hear of the phrase "hurry up and wait?" That's bitching, and those over in Iraq have more than I did to bitch about--even if they believe 100% in the mission.

Those salivating over these polls obviously don't understand military culture AT ALL. It's kinda funny, if you ask me.

Being how March 2 is Texas independence day and all, please learn your Texas history. Jackson did not send a relief force under Houston! Houston had been in Texas for years. He was raising and training his army in East Texas at the bidding of the newly created Texas government.

It would seem that the question is inprecise. I'm currently working on a project that I'd like to have done this week. However, I realize that that's not feasible and that it will most likely be the end of the month before I'm done. If someone was to ask me if I'd like to be done at the end of the week, the answer would be 'yes', but that's not the same thing as saying I'm ready to quit the project.

If the polling was only done in the Green Zone, it included headquarters types and the CSS folks who provide support for them. I don't know any staff officer who would have taken part in that kind of poll without permission from higher, and they are the ones with the big picture knowledge there. Had they gone down the street to any of the FOBs where line troops interact with Iraqis daily, they'd have gotten very different answhers.